Benchmark: Foreach&Push vs Map2

Script Preparation code:

var arr = Array.from({ length: 1000000 }, (_, i) => i);
var result = []

Tests:

Foreach&Push
arr.forEach(value => result.push(value * 2));
Map
result = arr.map(value => value * 2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Foreach&Push
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to multiply an array of numbers by 2: using `forEach` with a callback function to push results into another array, and using the `map()` method.

**Options Being Compared**

1. **Foreach&Push**: This approach uses `forEach()` to iterate over each element in the input array (`arr`), multiplies it by 2, and pushes the result into an output array (`result`). The key difference here is that the results are collected in a separate array (`result`).
2. **Map**: This approach uses the `map()` method to create a new array with the transformed values. In this case, each element in the input array (`arr`) is multiplied by 2 and returned as a new value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Foreach&Push**:
	* Pros: Can be more intuitive for developers who are familiar with the `forEach()` method.
	* Cons: Requires an additional step to collect the results in a separate array (`result`), which can lead to slower performance due to memory allocation and access overhead.
2. **Map**:
	* Pros: More concise and expressive, as it returns a new array with transformed values without requiring manual iteration or result collection.
	* Cons: May not be as intuitive for developers who are less familiar with the `map()` method.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark. However, if we consider JavaScript's built-in methods and APIs, both approaches rely on native functionality.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not specifically mention any advanced JavaScript features or syntax that would require special attention or consideration. It primarily focuses on showcasing the performance difference between two common array iteration patterns.

**Other Alternatives**

For testing similar scenarios, you might consider alternatives such as:

* Using `forEach()` with a callback function to collect results in an existing array (e.g., using `Array.prototype.forEach()` and modifying an existing array).
* Comparing the performance of other array iteration methods, like `for...of` or `reduce()`.
* Exploring the impact of data structures, such as arrays vs. linked lists, on performance.

In summary, this benchmark aims to highlight the performance difference between using `forEach` with a callback function for result collection versus leveraging the `map()` method to create a new array with transformed values.

Related benchmarks:

Foreach&Push vs Map2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Foreach&Push vs Map

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Foreach&Push

Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):